Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To settle specific claims, the Government of Canada does not take away land from third parties; [1] rather, the government typically resolves specific claims by negotiating a monetary compensation for the breach with the band government, and in exchange, they require the extinguishment of the First Nations' rights to the land in question. [3 ...
Specific claims are longstanding land claims disputes pertaining to Canada's legal obligations to indigenous communities. They are related to the administration of lands and other First Nations assets by the Government of Canada, or breaches of treaty obligations or of any other agreements between First Nations and the Crown by the government of Canada.
The agreement includes recognizing Sahtu Dene and Metis ownership of 41,437 km² of land in the Mackenzie River Valley. This includes subsurface or mineral rights to 1,813 km² of land. The Government of Canada agreed to negotiate self-government agreements on a community by community basis with the five Sahtu communities of Colville Lake ...
Co-management arrangements in Canada between Crown governments and Indigenous groups have historically arisen out of comprehensive land claims settlements (modern treaties), [4] crisis resolution processes (i.e. over resource disputes), and more recently out of growing legal recognition of Indigenous right through supreme court jurisprudence, such as the 1999 Sparrow ruling. [1]
In addition to the comprehensive agreements with Indian bands mentioned above, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 with the Inuit of the eastern Arctic, pursued a different model of governance. A new federal territory, Nunavut was created in 1999 where the Inuit were the majority, separate from the North West Territories where more First ...
The Mohegan Sun, developed on land taken in trust for the Mohegan as a product of settlement. Indian Land Claims Settlements are settlements of Native American land claims by the United States Congress, codified in 25 U.S.C. ch. 19. In several instances, these settlements ended live claims of aboriginal title in the United States. The first two ...
This was the second time the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to the Oneida's land claim. Over a decade earlier, in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v.County of Oneida (1974), the Supreme Court had allowed the same suit to proceed by unanimously holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. [2]
By 2002, (Valiente) First Nations had already "finalised 14 comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements, with numerous others, primarily in northern Canada and British Columbia, at different stages of negotiations." Land claims and self-government agreements are "modern treaties" and therefore hold constitutional status.